Looking for facts in a sea of weird, misleading, confusing and downright false information? Ask here! I am an ex-Scientologist so I will be able to provide actual facts. I will give you straight information, not church PR.

Because of various problems with Blogger, I've copied everything as of November 26, 2012 over to WordPress. The new location is Ask the Scientologist. I am not deleting this blog and will still accept comments and answer questions here too, but any new articles will appear at the WordPress location. I apologize if this causes any problems.

Seems that practically everyone makes the same mistake when calling Scientology a cult.

Below is the "admin why" and a more correct statement. When broadly grasped, this then will open the door for the necessary handlings.

"The Sea Organization: The current senior management group of the "church" lead by David Miscavige, is a rogue cult within Scientology. In every sense of the word and by any definition this group is a CULT. Public Scientologists and Staff Members not in the Sea Organization, are sort of "collateral damage" victims of the activities of this toxic cult group within Scientology and therefore exhibit cult symptoms even though they would argue vociferously to deny such." Vertley

From the "The "WHY" For Scientology" article/project.

(To non-Scientologists: This use of "why" as a noun is from L. Ron Hubbard's Data Evaluator's Series and is basically defined as the true reason a "non-optimum" situation came to be. Part of the definition is that the "right Why" opens the door to a handling that reverts the non-optimum situation.)

Let me rephrase this as it appears in many of the Independent Scientology sites so it is clear what "non-optimum" situation we are talking about and what they claim is the source of all their problems:

The Church of Scientology is guilty of tremendous abuses, crimes, fraud and lies -- but all of it is because of, and only because of David Miscavige.

It must be noted that the "Why" espoused in Vertley's comment is not a good example of a "right Why". It's merely a description of the the existing scene, not the cause of it.

Going to Vertley's website to investigate, I find that he has a "Who". To no one's surprise, Vertley has decided that the "Who" is "David Miscavige". I'm sure he started his "analysis" with that "finding" already decided upon.

As with almost all Outside Scientologists, he has the wrong "Who" and the wrong "Why".

Certainly, David Miscavige is a primary player in this drama, but Vertley, and other outside Scientologists aren't even asking the right questions.

Consider what "handling" Vertley's "Who" and "Why" leads to: "Remove David Miscavige from the organization".

Yup, that's it.

Now, you need to understand that David Miscavige has set things up, legally and organizationally, so that he cannot, ever be removed. Get it? Pretty much every Independent Scientology analysis comes up with David Miscavige as the "Who" and "Remove David Miscavige" as the "handling". Just a little hint: An analysis with a "Who" you cannottouch and a "Handling" you cannot implement is, by definition, totally wrong.

Wrong "Who". Wrong "Why".

No, this "Why" is a justification for all the things that have gone so very, very wrong in Scientology -- both inside and outside of the church. This bogus "Why" is Scientologists' excuse as to why it isn't their fault.

Let's see how the data analysis could have gone a bit deeper:

The situation is that David Miscavige is abusive, destructive and has been destroying the Church of Scientology.

The earlier problem was that Miscavige was allowed to do it. He was allowed to take over the church. His sociopathic behavior was not a secret. It was well demonstrated before he came to power.

Miscavige destroyed L. Ron Hubbard's tech and Scientologists not only let him do it, they applauded him for doing so! Thousands of people worked to help Miscavige do it.

Miscavige had and has no qualifications to lead Scientology, no training and no experience, yet no one stopped him. Many Scientologists followed him and helped him.

Miscavige was abusive from the start and none of the senior Scientologists stopped him. In over thirty years, no Scientologist stopped him or stopped his abuses. Many Scientologists started emulating the abusive Misavige.

Only a few Scientologists stood up to him and they were destroyed -- and other Scientologists helped Miscavige destroy them.

The "Why" is not that "David Miscavige came to power" or any other equally careless, cursory "reason why".

Scientologists, you have to look deeper and look honestly or this "non-optimum situation" will come back again and again. Since you haven't figured out the real reason David Miscavige came to power nor the real reason no one stopped him in over thirty years, you have no way to stop the next sociopath -- or the next, or the next one after that. I'm talking about Scientology, inside or outside of the church.

As I said before, David Miscavige is a symptom of what is wrong in Scientology, not the cause of it.

Wrong "Who". Wrong "Why".

Here is a question that you need to investigate and answer honestly: "What, in Scientology, allowed a sociopath to gain power unopposed?" It was way too easy for him.

Here is another: "Why were and are Scientologists so lacking in responsibility?" They didn't take responsibility earlier and they uniformly refuse to take responsibility now. The new motto for Scientology should be "It's not my fault!"

You start talking about the problems of Scientology and Scientologists will unanimously point all their fingers at David Miscavige. We're supposed to ignore all their actions and inactions for the last thirty years and just focus on Miscavige. Wrong! He is only one man. He needed a lot of people to follow him and a lot more to say nothing.

Which were you, dear Scientologist? Were you the one who applauded while your church was destroyed? Were you one of those who disconnected from your parents, your friends, your children? Did you help the church destroy innocent people? Or did you just turn away, hoping "things would get better" and didn't say anything?

Were you the coward, or the enabler? How many of your principles did you fail to uphold? When did you decide it was too hard to be honest and decent? How did you help in the destruction of Scientology and your fellow Scientologists?

Don't look too far for the "Who" in all this. Some day you might grow enough to take responsibility for what you have done, what all us Scientologists have done.

I don't care much about the Church of Scientology, but what is important is all the people who have been harmed and destroyed -- with your assistance, or at least your tacit approval.

Now, do you think you can find the right "Why"? One that doesn't involve blaming David Miscavige for everything?

I doubt you can do it. Judging by the last thirty years, you have neither the courage, the honesty nor the decency to do it. As long as you keep insisting on the wrong "Who" and the wrong "Why" -- excuses for why you're not responsible -- you will never be able to stop the inevitable destruction of Scientology.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Scientologists keep insisting, "Scientology is not a cult!" OK then, if that is so, then removing all the cult characteristics from Scientology should be quite simple and certainly very desirable. After all, if you believe Scientology is not a cult, then you, of all people, would want to remove all possible doubt by eradicating as many cult characteristics as you can.

Of course, this couldn't be done by the Church of Scientology. David Miscavige has pushed the church too far into the cult thing to change now, but one would think that the outside Scientologists would want to avoid any and all aspects of cult behavior.

Unless, of course, you think that these cult attributes of Scientology are vital to its basic functionality. Do you?

Lifton details the following eight characteristics that typify a destructive group environment:

Dictating with whom members can communicate

Boy, Scientology really does this one! You've got disconnection, "enemies" lists, suppressive declares, "lower conditions", "sources of entheta" and many other ways to interfere with and control Scientologists' communication. And, yes, this attitude is very much alive in Scientology outside of the church.

Scientology says this kind of super-control is "for your own good". Oh, really? In no other endeavor is less information considered good. The bottom line is that the ostensible leaders of Scientology benefit from this kind of control, not the members. They don't trust people to get all the information and make up their own minds. No, they say, you must be "protected" from other viewpoints and other ideas.

No legitimate philosophy, belief or religion requires this kind of super-control.

Get rid of it all: Disconnection, "enemies" lists, suppressive declares, "sources of entheta" and all other methods of restricting and controlling communication. Scientology is supposed to be all about "communication", so remove all the artificial and cult-like barriers to communication.

Convincing members they are a chosen people with a higher purpose.

The Scientology version of this is: Scientologists are Homo Novis, more advanced, superior beings who are the "only ones" who can save the universe from the "dwindling spiral". Part of the Scientology doctrine is that "Scientologists are better, more ethical, more causative and more intelligent. They are the top 1% of the top 1%."

While this may make Scientologists feel puffed up with self-importance, the real reason for this message is that it makes it easier for the leaders to keep asking for more commitment, more money and more effort from their followers without having to explain why or account for any funds. Scientology's professed leaders can suppress any questions or dissent because of this "higher purpose".

In the real world such statements of superiority are seen, quite correctly, as vain and self-serving. In the real world, the status of being better can only be bestowed by others in acknowledgement of a person's or group's good work or high quality results or products.

You'd best shut up about how "superior" Scientologists are. That's obvious cult-talk, guys. It would be an excellent improvement to Scientology's dogma if that disappeared.

Creating an us-versus-them mentality, whereby everything in the group is right and everything outside is wrong.

This attitude is embodied in the Great Anti-Scientology Conspiracy created by L. Ron Hubbard. Such a "conspiracy" doesn't exist. You are not surrounded and opposed by the "Enemy". You are not engaged in a "Great Battle". If you keep thinking like that, you will fail -- as Scientology has for so long. This "conspiracy" exists only to isolate Scientologists from the real world. It's a cult thing.

Already I see "Independent Scientology" moving in the direction of more and more us-versus-them, more and more isolation and more and more fear of contact with difficult questions, disagreements and other ideas.

You will never be accepted by society at large if you keep looking at society and non-Scientologists as either the enemy or as too stupid or evil to "see the 'truth' of Scientology." If you stop fighting your imaginary "enemies", you might just find the world is filled with some very good people doing very good things.

Encouraging members to share their innermost secrets and then purge whatever hinders their merging with the group.

In Scientology, whether on course or in session, any Scientologist who "disagrees with Hubbard", "questions Hubbard", "has doubts" or "thinks there is a better way" must be, and is, handled until they give up any disagreements, questions, doubts and such. Woe betide the student who says, "That doesn't match my experience!"

If the disagreement persists, Scientology's automatic accusation is that it is the Scientologist's "out ethics" (meaning evil acts) that is causing the disagreement. The Scientologist is required to confess all their transgressions to the "Ethics Officer" or auditor until they abandon their doubts and disagreements and fully agree with Hubbard's words.

The purpose of this is to punish disagreement and doubt. According to Scientology, the "source" of the disagreement is never Scientology, it is the person's evil intentions. The purpose of this bit of cult indoctrination is control, not enlightenment.

Why would any legitimate philosophy, belief or religion require such suppression and punishment for disagreement? This has got to go.

Convincing members that their philosophical belief system is "the absolute truth".

While early Hubbard was known to have admitted his mistakes and the imperfections of Scientology, his later pronouncements have led true believers to assign Scientology technology a status of absolute perfection. They now believe that every single piece of Scientology is perfect, "works 100% of the time" and solves every single problem known to man.

And the many, many times Scientology has failed? Well Scientology has a built-in excuse for that: "It was misapplied!"

This cult attribute allows Scientology to continue to fail, when it does, while continuing to claim "absolute perfection". Followers must continue to believe in Scientology's "perfection" or admit to the crime of "misapplying Scientology". It's a control thing, not an honesty thing.

The Scientology belief system is not perfect. There are significant flaws. All you have to do is take an honest, unbiased look. Honestly review your own experiences and the results of Scientologists in general.

Be honest, admit the failures of Scientology so that any successes might stand a chance of being believed. Any truth in Scientology, any good results from Scientology, will be proven in the real world, not in rhetoric.

Creating an "in" language of buzzwords and group speak which becomes a substitute for critical thinking.

You may have noticed that, from the cult attributes list so far, one of the overreaching themes of cults is isolation. Scientology's insistence on its own very unique terminology, and its insistence that these strange terms have nothing to do with concepts from other philosophies and religions, works very well to isolate Scientologists' thinking and concepts.

This is not for the benefit of members of Scientology. In truth, Scientology's terminology does have parallels to concepts from other philosophies and religions. A minor amount of thought and study proves this to be true. The more Scientology allows parallels to be drawn and the less Scientology insists on only using its very unique terminology, the better Scientologists will get along with the rest of the world and the better Scientologists will understand universal spiritual concepts.

Scientology must change to take advantage of all the richness there is in the world. Get rid of this cult isolation technique.

Reinterpreting human experience and emotion in terms of the group's doctrine.

Scientology does this in how it describes the mind. Scientology's "Reactive Mind" is, they say, the cause of all sickness, upset, problems and failures. Further, all difficulties that a person might have, every single one, has its cause in something Hubbard has described and is solved by something Scientology sells.

If a Scientologist feels good or succeeds at something, it is only "because of Scientology". If a Scientologist feels bad or fails, it is only because they "misapplied or failed to apply Scientology".

Nothing in this universe exists in isolation. To believe, as Scientologists now do, that all good things are due exclusively to Scientology, is ludicrous and very, very cult-like. Likewise, to believe that all bad emotions or failures are due only to a "failure to apply Scientology" is preposterous, extremely simplistic and, again, a cult thing.

What must be ignored by all Scientologists is that many in world outside of Scientology are happy and living quite well without Scientology. Quite a few are even doing much better than your average Scientologist.

To take all the complexities of life, all the factors, all the conditions and to reduce it down to just one cause and only one solution is neither logical nor sane. Cults are like that. Get rid of this cult attribute.

Reinforcing the idea that life within the group is good and worthy, and life outside evil and pointless.

Scientology teaches that the only good being done in the world is being done by Scientology. Scientology teaches that the only worthwhile activities and goals are Scientology's activities and goals. Scientology teaches that all other solutions in the world are worthless and pointless because Scientology has the solutions to everything.

Scientology teaches that life within Scientology is full of happiness and success, but life outside of Scientology is doomed to failure.

As with most of these attributes of a cult, this is designed to isolate members from the rest of the world. If the rest of the world is grey, pointless and doomed, why have anything to do with it?

Since the rest of the world is not grey, pointless or doomed, and is, in fact, filled with many good people doing many good things, the only purpose of this cult attribute is to further isolate the Scientologist to make them easier to control.

Get rid of this bit of indoctrination, it doesn't benefit Scientologists, only their purported leaders.

Summary.

Dear Scientologist, if you are like I was when I was first looking beyond Scientology, you will be shocked and alarmed by the fact that Scientology exhibits all the attributes of a cult. This cannot be acceptable to you.

This subject is very important to any Scientologist who wants Scientology to go forward into society. Cults cannot do that. You may insist that Scientology is not a cult, but unless you remove all the cult attributes from Scientology, it really doesn't matter what you believe. In the real world, if it talks like a cult, acts like a cult and controls its members like a cult -- it is a cult.

Can you remove the "cult" from Scientology? In truth, I'm betting Scientologists won't even try, especially those who aspire to leadership in the "new" Scientology.

The benefits of Scientology retaining all its cult characteristics are to the leaders of the cult, not to its members. When the supposed leaders of "new" Scientology vehemently support the retention of all these cult attributes, be aware of why they do so.
-

Sunday, October 17, 2010

This post is applicable to anyone who is looking into Dianetics or Scientology.

You are being asked to participate in Dianetics/Scientology services from the Church of Scientology.

That's fine, nothing wrong with that if that's your choice.

But you need to be very, very careful. You are being asked to believe quite a number of things without proof, and there is no reason for you to accept this situation. You should ask for, and should receive, valid proof before you give the Church of Scientology any of your money.

You may have read Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. You may have read or heard about L. Ron Hubbard's description of "Clear":

A clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied. He does mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds. He does not think “vocally” but spontaneously. There are no demon circuits in his mind except those which it might amuse him to set up -- and break down again -- to care for various approaches to living. He is entirely self-determined. And his creative imagination is high. He can do a swift study of anything within his intellectual capacity, which is inherent, and the study would be the equivalent to him of a year or two of training when he was “normal.” His vigor, persistence and tenacity to life are very much higher than anyone has thought possible.

L. Ron HubbardDianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

And you might think that this definition of "Clear" is what the Church of Scientology is promising when they say they are "producing Clears".

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I urge you to check it out for yourself. Ask to talk to one of these Church of Scientology "Clears". Find out what their "complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied" is like in reality. Can they tell you the name of their second grade teacher? Can they quote, verbatim, from a book they read last year?

Can this "Clear" do "mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds"?

Check it out for yourself before you give the Church of Scientology any of your hard-earned money.

If you look, I am sure you will find what many ex-Scientologists already know, that not one Church of Scientology "Clear" has the abilities and powers that L. Ron Hubbard promised. In fact, you will discover that Scientology "Clears" have no special abilities or powers at all.

Look for yourself.

If you participate in any Church of Scientology "auditing" you may experience, as many have, a temporary feeling of euphoria at the end of the session. No one knows why this happens, but it is always and only temporary and does not indicate any permanent "gains".

Check it out for yourself. Talk to "Clears" and "OTs". Don't ask them about Scientology, because they will just give you the standard sales spiel. Ask them what they do for a living. Are they "industry leaders"? Are they successful? Are they still allowed to talk with their family? Ask them difficult questions. Press them to answer instead of evade.

Go to the Internet and search for "Scientology". No legitimate organization would forbid such an investigation. The Church of Scientology will tell you that "everything you read on the Internet is a lie" but they will never, ever provide any proof of that. They want you to trust them on this, but they don't trust you to make up your own mind. The Church of Scientology will tell you there is a Great Anti-Scientology Conspiracy but they will never provide any proof of that either.

In fact, if you want to really upset a Scientologist, ask for proof of anything they claim -- they won't have any proof at all, but they will get very upset when you ask. If that doesn't ring any alarm bells for you, then nothing will.

I am not saying that Scientology does nothing. For some people, it certainly may help -- but it never, ever delivers on any of its big, miraculous promises.

Do what you want, believe what you want, but look for yourself and get actual proof before you give the Church of Scientology any of your money.
-

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Here is a question for Church of Scientology members: Why doesn't the church publish good news about itself?

If you are a True Believer and a member of the Church of Scientology, you will, of course, believe in the Great Anti-Scientology Conspiracy. And this Conspiracy explains why everyone else doesn't publish good news about the church...

But why doesn't the Church of Scientology publish its own "Good News" for the world to admire?

You go to David Miscavige's Big Events, and you hear about the church's "solutions" around the world, and you hear about the church's "expansion" and you stand and applaud, but none of these things appear outside of the church. The Big Event DVDs are kept under strict lock and key, and the penalties for leaking any of this information are very severe. No one but Scientologists must see these events, and even they must not record any part of it or take any notes.

Why is every bit of the Church of Scientology's "good news" secret? Why doesn't this "news" get released and reported? Not only do major media not report anything and not only are all other news outlets silent about this "news" but the Church of Scientology itself doesn't even report it via press releases.

Don't you find that quite odd?

We know the Church of Scientology understands press releases because you will see their press releases appear now and then -- but those only contain anecdotal stories about individual Scientologists' personal opinions and personal experiences.

Never news. Never facts. (But you are not supposed to notice that.)

And Scientologists need to be asking why. Why doesn't the church issue press releases about all its "good news"? If there is all that good news, why doesn't the church tell the world?

The answer is quite obvious and quite simple. The Chuch of Scientololgy only issues stories about personal opinions and personal experiences because no one can fact-check those.

The church knows, from past experience, that if they publish any of the claims from Miscavige's Big Events, people around the world will fact-check everything, and every single lie the church tells will be exposed.

This is not some idle fear, it has happened time and time again: One of Miscavige's "amazing" claims gets leaked and people around the world visit the locations and contact the people involved -- and inevitably find Miscavige has lied. Again.

And so, knowing that everything he claims will be fact-checked, David Miscavige keeps his events very secret and the church makes no claims at all in any of their press releases. They know that nothing they claim will withstand careful investigation.

Everything Miscavige claims is a lie. The proof is in the Church of Scientology's complete silence.
-

Sunday, October 3, 2010

When I was first introduced to Scientology, I was quite enamored with the states of Clear and OT as described and promised by L. Ron Hubbard.

In Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health, in 1950, Hubbard described Clear:

A clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied. He does mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds. He does not think “vocally” but spontaneously. There are no demon circuits in his mind except those which it might amuse him to set up -- and break down again -- to care for various approaches to living. He is entirely self-determined. And his creative imagination is high. He can do a swift study of anything within his intellectual capacity, which is inherent, and the study would be the equivalent to him of a year or two of training when he was “normal.” His vigor, persistence and tenacity to life are very much higher than anyone has thought possible.

L. Ron HubbardDianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

I also discovered Hubbard's description and promises for OT from his lectures and materials from 1952. Hubbard said, when a person attained OT:

They would be "cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought".

An OT could leave the body at will and go anywhere in the whole universe in an instant.

An OT could view any portion of the time track clearly and precisely.

An OT could easily create and destroy MEST (matter, energy, space and time).

Who wouldn't desire these states? I wanted the powers and abilities of Clear and OT.

So, I did Scientology, and I became Clear. And I was quite disappointed that I never gained any of the abilities and powers that I expected. But I forgot that these had been promised to me by Hubbard.

I continued, and I did OT levels. Again, I was disappointed. Where were the powers and abilities that Hubbard had promised?

Weren't all those wonderful things promised to all of us?

Well, no, they aren't. Not any more.

In Scientology today, those things are not promised any more. Oh, sure, Scientology wants you to read Dianetics and think that you are getting that kind of Clear -- but that isn't what they promise. They love for you to listen to Hubbard's lectures about OT from 1952 and think that's what you'll be getting -- but they don't promise anything.

Today, this is what Scientology "promises":

Clear: a highly desirable state for the individual, achieved through auditing, which was never attainable before Dianetics. A Clear is a person who no longer has his own reactive mind and therefore suffers none of the ill effects that the reactive mind can cause. The Clear has no engrams which, when restimulated, throw out the correctness of his computations by entering hidden and false data.

That is very, very different from what Hubbard promised. It used to be an amazing state full of abilities and powers far beyond the normal person. Now it is a vague state, described as "highly desirable" but without any specific reasons why anyone should consider it desirable at all.

Today, a Clear, is just someone who "no longer has his own reactive mind", but that no longer means any specific improvements or abilities. Nothing is promised and nothing is delivered.

Today, the determination of whether you are Clear or not has nothing to do with abilities or powers, the determination is, if you had the "Clear cognition", you are Clear -- until David Miscavige decides you aren't.

So, between Hubbard's fantastic descriptions and promises of 1950 down to the vapid and meaningless description and promises of today, the State of Clear has become powerless and meaningless.

For OT, it's even more drastic. Today, the Church of Scientology's description of OT is:

By “operating” is meant “able to act and handle things.” And by “thetan” is meant the spiritual being that is the basic self. “Theta” is Greek for thought or life or the spirit.

An Operating Thetan then is one who can handle things without having to use a body or physical means.

Basically one is oneself, can handle things and exist without physical support and assistance. This state is Operating Thetan, or OT. It doesn't mean one becomes God. It means one becomes wholly oneself.

Very little is said and nothing is actually promised.

The statement "handle things without having to use a body" sounds pretty good, but, well, what "things", and what does "handle" mean? Is anything specific actually being promised here? The statement could mean anything and so, ultimately, it means nothing.

And the statement: "One becomes wholly oneself" is devoid of any actual meaning. With that description, anyone could be "OT" as long as they considered that they were "wholly themselves".

Whatever happened to "cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought"? Whatever happened to "going exterior at will"? Whatever happened to "creating and destroying MEST"? Whatever happened to OT?

In today's Scientology, there are no promises or expectation of any special abilities or powers from becoming OT. You finish OT VIII and, "Congratulations, you are OT".

Again, from the fantastic promises and descriptions by Hubbard in the 1950s down to the vapid and meaningless description of today, OT has become nothing much.

While Scientologists may have been lured in by the description of Clear from 1950 and the descriptions of OT from the early days, they have no reason to complain when those states never occur -- because the actual descriptions used today by Scientology for their "advanced states" are empty of all meaning and significance. Today, nothing is promised and nothing is delivered.

This is why David Miscavige can declare thousands of Clears and OTs "not Clear" and "not OT" and send them all back to redo everything -- there are no criteria to determine or validate these states. It's completely arbitrary, no one can say otherwise.

This is why there are constant arguments inside and outside of the church about who is and isn't Clear -- there is no way to test it, no way to prove it or disprove it. You are "Clear" only if some "authority" says you are.

Neither Clear nor OT actually exist as exceptional states, they are just arbitrary labels assigned by some "authority" to indicate you finished some level -- nothing more.
-

Search Ask the Scientologist

Frequency of articles

I know a number of people want me to write more frequently and I consider that a great compliment.

I would, but I refuse to write just for the sake of writing. I want to have something to say that is worthwhile. I've written a lot and, too often, when I'm researching something I want to say, I find I've already said it, sometimes several times.

When I started this blog, there was a lot of confusion and bad information which I intended to help clear up. I think I did that. Now there are many very fine blogs and other sources of factual information and excellent opinions. Often, when I'm researching something, I find that others have already covered it quite well.